, , , ,

Simple concept, right? If this idea so darn easy to rationalize then why are there employee management paradigms that assume the same incentives and penalties will work for everyone in the organization (much less in the same department)?

I mean, it’s nice that people get bonuses or are otherwise rewarded for doing good work, but to believe that you can improve Jane’s performance by applying  the same motivation plan that works for the office star, let’s say Margaret, sounds inane to me.

Everyone is different. They are motivated via different means, they have different goals, they live different lives and are proficient in different areas.

Not everyone is an extrovert; making them unlikely to assume leading roles and excel in ways they might be expected to. In that sense, doesn’t it seem a little unfair to judge these people based on their leadership qualities if they just weren’t built for that?

By the same token, an extrovert’s ability to communicate with people and collaborate would be wasted if they were relegated to a cubicle and expected to do busy-work which they won’t enjoy and will show in the quality of their work as well as be reflected in their subsequent performance review.

I’m sorry if this doesn’t sound like the PC thing to believe, but people have different strengths and trying to make someone fit a role they are not comfortable with or unwilling to take on is just wrong. I’m not just talking about being morally wrong, but business-wise: it’s wrong! You’re not using your assets efficiently if you’re not utilizing them in areas where their strengths can really come into play.

It’s like putting square wheels on your car thinking they’ll turn into round wheels out of necessity. The truth is those wheels will eventually be round but only after a long time and a lot of friction.